Proposed resolution:

In [utility] change the synopsis for make_pair() to read

template <class T1, class T2>
  pair<typename decay<T1>::type V1, typename decay<T2>::type V2> make_pair(T1&&, T2&&);

In [pairs]/16 change the declaration to match the above synopsis. Then change the [pairs]/17 to:

Returns: pair<typename decay<T1>::type V1,typename decay<T2>::type V2>(forward<T1>(x),forward<T2>(y)) where V1 and V2 are determined as follows: Let Ui be decay<Ti>::type for each Ti. Then each Vi is X& if Ui equals reference_wrapper<X>, otherwise Vi is Ui.

The current draft has make_pair() in [pairs]/16 and make_tuple() in [tuple.creation]. make_tuple() detects the presence of reference_wrapper<X> arguments and "unwraps" the reference in such cases. make_pair() would OTOH create a reference_wrapper<X> member. I suggest that the two functions are made to behave similar in this respect to minimize confusion.